Your case is unique, but you are not alone.

About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.

  • Know your judge

    Every judge has a pattern — what they grant, what they deny, how they handle the kinds of motions your case will see.

  • Know your attorney

    See an attorney’s actual track record — case types, courts, and how they’ve performed in front of this judge before.

  • Know your court

    Every courthouse has its own rhythm — filing-to-resolution times, common dispositions, how often cases like yours settle.

Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?

How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?

AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Photo of Massachusetts Unified County

Court

Massachusetts Unified County

Massachusetts

View Court Profile

Case Information

Filed 2022-03-14
Status Closed
Type Cot Remove Cloud On Title, G.l. Chapter 240, 6 10
Docket 135 entries
Disposition judgment

Parties

Plaintiff Smith, Alexandra
Defendant Chak, Daniel

Lawyers

Docket Entries

  1. ORRECTION: Due to clerical error, the following correction was made to the docket on September 30, 2025: The corrected language is ""[...] September 4, 2024. Motion hearing held via video conference [...]"" and the following original text is stricken: ""[...] September 4, 2024. Motion hearing held via teleconference [...]"." Entry dated 09/04/2024.
  2. ase assigned to the Average Track per Land Court Standing Order 1:04.
  3. and Court miscellaneous filing fee Receipt: 429135 Date: 03/14/2022
  4. and Court surcharge Receipt: 429135 Date: 03/14/2022
  5. and Court summons Receipt: 429135 Date: 03/14/2022
  6. niform Counsel Certificate for Civil Cases filed by Plaintiff.
  7. laintiff Alexandra Smith's Motion for Appointment of Special Process Server filed and ALLOWED. Judge: Patterson, Deborah J.
  8. he case has been assigned to the A Track. Notice sent. Notice of Judge and Track Assignment was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Daniel Chak No addresses available null: File Copy Sent On: 03/28/2022 16:01:38
  9. vent Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Case Management Conference Date: 04/20/2022 Time: 09:30 AM
  10. ummons returned to Court with service on Daniel Chak filed. Left at last and usual place of abode on March 17, also mailed first class on March 17.
  11. efendant's Answer and Counterclaim, filed.
  12. oint Motion to Continue Case Management Conference, filed and ALLOWED (Smith, J.).
  13. vent Resulted: Case Management Conference scheduled on: 04/20/2022 09:30 AM Has been: Continued Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  14. vent Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Case Management Conference Date: 05/23/2022 Time: 10:30 AM
  15. vent Resulted: Case Management Conference scheduled on: 05/23/2022 10:30 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding May 23, 2022. Case management conference held by videoconference. Attorney Christopher K. Sweeney appeared for the plaintiff, and Attorney Stephen P. Griffin appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff has brought this action to remove cloud on title under G.L. c. 240, 6-10, seeking declaratory judgment as to the ownership of a disputed strip of land bordering the parties' respective properties in Dorchester. Attorney Sweeney represented that the parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions. Following a brief discussion of the legal issues and procedural posture of the case, the court continued the case management conference until 10:00 a.m. on Friday, June 24, 2022. Hearing to be held via videoconference. (Smith, J.).
  16. vent Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Case Management Conference Date: 06/24/2022 Time: 10:00 AM
  17. vent Resulted: Case Management Conference scheduled on: 06/24/2022 10:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding June 24, 2022. Case management conference held by videoconference. Attorney Christopher K. Sweeney appeared for the plaintiff, and Attorney Stephen P. Griffin appeared for the defendant. Counsel represented that the parties are close to reaching a settlement agreement with the exception of a legal issue which must be resolved in order for the agreement to be consummated. Following colloquy, the court continued the case management conference until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 26, 2022 in order to allow the parties to complete settlement discussions. Hearing to be held via videoconference. (Smith, J.).
  18. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Status Conference Date: 07/26/2022 Time: 10:30 AM
  19. vent Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 07/26/2022 10:30 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding July 26, 2022. Status conference held by videoconference. Attorney Christopher K. Sweeney appeared for the plaintiff, and Attorney Stephen P. Griffin appeared for the defendant. Counsel represented that the parties remain on the verge of a settlement agreement. Following colloquy, the court scheduled a status conference to be held via videoconference at 2:00 p.m. on August 18, 2022. If the parties have not reached a settlement agreement by the time of the status conference, the court will order the commencement of discovery on August 19, 2022. (Smith, J.).
  20. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Status Conference Date: 08/18/2022 Time: 02:00 PM
  21. vent Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 08/18/2022 02:00 PM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding August 18, 2022. Status conference held by videoconference. Attorney Christopher K. Sweeney appeared for the plaintiff, and Attorney Stephen P. Griffin appeared for the defendant. Counsel represented that the parties remain engaged in settlement discussions. Following colloquy, the court ordered the commencement of discovery consistent with the Land Court's Fast Track designation, which calls for the completion of all discovery by February 17, 2023. The court scheduled a status conference to be held via videoconference at 9:30 on February 27, 2023, at which time the court and parties can discuss potential trial dates or set a briefing schedule for dispositive motions, if necessary. (Smith, J.).
  22. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Status Conference Date: 02/27/2023 Time: 09:30 AM
  23. mith's Motion to Compel Responses to Document Requests, Production of Documents, Responses to Requests for Admissions, and Answers to Interrogatories from Chak, filed.
  24. ertificate of Compliance with Rule 7, filed.
  25. mail Received from Attorney Sweeney Reporting Case Settled.
  26. vent Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 02/27/2023 09:30 AM Has been: Canceled For the following reason: Case Reported Settled Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  27. mith's Motion for First Extension of Discovery Deadline, filed.
  28. mail From Attorney Sweeney Clarifying That His Email to the Court on January 18 Was Not Reporting Case Settled.
  29. efendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's First Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline, filed (by email).
  30. laintiff's Answer to Defendant's Counterclaim, filed.
  31. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Status Conference Date: 03/28/2023 Time: 02:00 PM
  32. mith's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Non-Party Timothy Kilburn, filed.
  33. vent Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 03/28/2023 02:00 PM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding March 28, 2023. Status conference held via videoconference. Attorney Christopher Sweeney appeared for the plaintiff. Attorney Stephen Griffin appeared for the defendant. The parties discussed the plaintiff's request for an extension of the discovery deadline. Attorney Sweeney informed the court that he is in the process of deposing each of the prior owners of the plaintiff's property and defendant's property, respectively. Attorney Sweeney has deposed the prior owner of the defendant's property, however the prior owner of the plaintiff's property has not responded to subpoenas for deposition or any other communications. The court indicated its intent to issue an order to appear for this deponent, pending further submissions from the parties reflecting the attempted communications with the deponent and his reasons for refusing to sit for a deposition. Otherwise, the parties reported that they have completed written discovery and are only finishing depositions at this time. Following colloquy, the court granted an extension of the discovery deadline. All depositions and all discovery are to be completed by June 15, 2023. The parties shall report to the court no later than June 23, 2023 whether either or both plan to file a motion for summary judgment. If so, any motions for summary judgment shall be filed with the court by August 1, 2023. Oppositions to such motions shall be filed 30 days thereafter. (Smith, J.).
  34. efendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Timothy Kilburn, filed (by email).
  35. mith's Reply to Chak's Response to Motion to Compel Deposition of Non-Party Timothy Kilburn, filed.
  36. rder on Motion to Compel Deposition of Timothy Kilburn, issued. (Copies emailed to Attorneys Sarah Nyren, Christopher Sweeney, and Stephen Griffin) Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T.
  37. mailed report of Defendant, received. Defendant, Daniel Chak, does intend to move for summary judgment in this matter and will file and serve a motion by August 1st in accordance with the schedule established by the Court.
  38. omplaint for Contempt, filed.
  39. vent Scheduled: Hearing on Complaint for Contempt. Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Hearing on Complaint for Contempt Date: 07/10/2023 Time: 10:00 AM Summons to issue on Monday, July 3, 2023.
  40. ffidavit of Christopher K. Sweeney in Support of Contempt Complaint Against Non-Party Timothy Kilburn, filed. (Signed Version. Initially filed under Complaint for Contempt).
  41. mail received from plaintiff withdrawing their complaint for contempt against Timothy Kilburn.
  42. vent Resulted: Hearing on Complaint for Contempt scheduled on: 07/10/2023 10:00 AM Has been: Not held For the following reason: Request of Plaintiff(s) Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  43. efendant's Assented to Motion to Extend Summary Judgement Deadline, filed.
  44. uly 25, 2023. Defendant's Assented to Motion to Extend Summary Judgement Deadline, ALLOWED (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Stephen P Griffin, Esq. [email protected] Interested Party: Timothy Kilburn 507 West Water Street, Rockland, MA 02370 Sent On: 07/25/2023 15:01:55
  45. ssented-to Motion to Extend Smith's Deadline to File an Opposition to Chak's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
  46. eptember 27, 2023. Assented-to Motion to Extend Smith's Deadline to File an Opposition to Chak's Motion for Summary Judgment, ALLOWED. (Smith, J.) Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Stephen P Griffin, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 09/27/2023 11:29:56
  47. laintiff Alexandra Smith's Opposition to Defendant Daniel Chak's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed. (Courtesy copy received)
  48. laintiff's Response to Statement of Material Facts In Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Further Statement of Material Facts, filed. (Courtesy copy received)
  49. oint Appendix, filed.
  50. oint Appendix With Exhibits, filed. (Courtesy copy received)
  51. efendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
  52. efendant's Statement of Material Undisputed Facts Pursuant to Land Court Rule 4, filed.
  53. ffidavit of Daniel Chak, filed. (Courtesy copy received)
  54. emorandum In Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
  55. efendant's Appendix, filed. (Scan includes Letter dated January 16, 2024).
  56. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Date: 01/08/2024 Time: 10:00 AM
  57. ssented-to Motion to Continue Hearing on Defendant Daniel Chak's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
  58. otice of Docket Entry: December 14, 2023. Assented-to Motion to Continue Hearing on Defendant Daniel Chak's Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED. (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Stephen P Griffin, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 12/14/2023 11:37:01
  59. vent Resulted: Motion scheduled on: 01/08/2024 10:00 AM Has been: Continued For the following reason: Request of Plaintiff(s) Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  60. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Date: 02/12/2024 Time: 09:00 AM
  61. efendant's Motion for View, filed.
  62. laintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for a View., filed.
  63. efendant Daniel Chak's Motion to Strike, filed.
  64. onsolidated Statements of Material Facts and Responses Concerning Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed. (Courtesy copy received on February 7, 2024).
  65. efendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
  66. ffidavit of Diane Cylik, filed.
  67. upplemental Affidavit of Daniel Chak in support of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
  68. laintiff Alexandra Smith's Motion to Strike Late Disclosed Affidavit, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply, filed.
  69. laintiff Alexandra Smith's Opposition to Motion to Strike Materials from Summary Judgment Record, filed.
  70. vent Resulted: Motion scheduled on: 02/12/2024 09:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding February 12, 2024. Motion hearing held via videoconference. Attorney Christopher Sweeney appeared for the plaintiff. Attorney Stephen Griffin appeared for the defendant. Before the court was the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Attorney Griffin argued that the uncontroverted admissible evidence in the summary judgment record shows more than twenty years of occupation of the disputed area by the defendant and his predecessors, all of whom believed that the disputed area was their property. Attorney Griffin argued further that the only evidence of permission is a text message from the plaintiff's predecessor, which is inadmissible hearsay. Attorney Sweeney argued that the evidence fails to establish that the use of the disputed area by the defendant and his predecessors was open and notorious or exclusive, and even if the text message were ruled inadmissible, the plaintiff's predecessor could, nonetheless, testify at trial that the construction of the retaining wall in the disputed area was permissive, not adverse. Following argument, the court took the motion under advisement and will issue a decision in due course. (Smith, J.).
  71. otice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Stephen P Griffin, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 02/12/2024 13:46:58
  72. ebruary 14, 2024. The Defendant, Daniel Chak, has moved for summary judgment on his counterclaim that he has acquired the disputed area between his property and that of the Plaintiff, Alexandra Smith, by adverse possession. Chak bases his adverse possession claim on the strength of the physical characteristics of the area between his property and Smith's which include a change in grade, cement blocks, oak trees, a retaining wall, a shed, and a garden, plus the testimony of Ralph Gramazio, his predecessor in title. Smith opposes Chak's claim by claiming that at least two of the elements for adverse possession have not been satisfied: adverse use and continuous use for twenty years. Regarding adversity, Smith claims Gramazio installed the retaining wall that marks one edge of the disputed area with the permission of her predecessor in title, Timothy Kilburn. In support of that contention, she has offered a text message from Kilburn that is hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible to establish a dispute of material fact concerning permission. However, she also points to deposition testimony from Ralph Gramazio in which he testified he spoke with Kilburn prior to installing the retaining wall. Smith characterizes that testimony as constituting evidence of permission by Kilburn for Gramazio to install the retaining wall on his land. Chak responds that Gramazio's testimony about these conversations do not indicate that Gramazio sought Kilburn's permission and, to the contrary, establish that Gramazio installed the retaining wall on land he believed belonged to him. Smith also contends that there are disputes of fact regarding whether Chak has proffered adequate evidence that he and his predecessor in title used the disputed land continuously for twenty years. She points to a ten-year period after 2008 when Chak lived in California and, therefore, does not have first-hand knowledge of the condition of the disputed area and admitted that, during that time, he allowed parts of the disputed area to become overgrown. She also points to deposition testimony from Gramazio where he did not provide specifics about how he used or maintained parts of the disputed area during his ownership of 76 Alban. She contends that this evidence is inadequate to establish continuous use and, thus, is a disputed fact which requires a trial. The law of adverse possession is settled. The elements of such a claim are the nonpermissive use of another's land which is "actual, open, notorious, exclusive and adverse for twenty years." Ryan v. Stavros, 348 Mass. 251, 262 (1964); LaChance v. First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co., 301 Mass. 488, 491 (1938). The nature and extent of the required use varies based on the characteristics of the land in question. LaChance, 301 Mass. at 490. "[T]he determination whether a set of activities is sufficient to support a claim for adverse possession is inherently fact-specific." Sea Pines Condo. III Ass'n v. Steffens, 61 Mass.App.Ct. 838, 848 (2004). Furthermore, the party claiming the rights by adverse possession bears the burden of proving all of the necessary elements of such possession. Id. at 847. "The acts of the wrongdoer are to be construed strictly and 'the true owner is not to be barred of his right except upon clear proof.'" Tinker v. Bessel, 213 Mass. 74, 76 (1912), quoting Cook v. Babcock, 65 Mass. 206, 210 (1853). In deciding whether this case should go to trial or be disposed of on summary judgment, I do not assess the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. The sole question is whether there are material facts in dispute that require a trial. I have reviewed the summary judgment record and the Gramazio deposition in particular. While his testimony tends to support Chak's claim of title by adverse possession, he appears reluctant to be involved and, at times, annoyed by the questions about his recollections concerning his use of the disputed area that occurred more than 16 years ago. The result is a body of testimony that does not overcome the strict construction I must apply to it for purposes of finding title by adverse possession on summary judgment. In addition, the evidence concerning Chak's absence from 76 Alban Street while he lived in California, at least, raises a question concerning whether and to what extent he used the disputed area in a manner that satisfies the elements of adverse possession. Before I declare Chak to be the owner of the disputed area by adverse possession, I must see the property and hear the trial testimony of Gramazio, Chak, and any other person with relevant knowledge. For that reason, Chak's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The court will schedule a status conference in the coming weeks to set a trial date. (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. (Counsel notified via email on 02/14/2024.)
  73. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Status Conference Date: 04/04/2024 Time: 02:00 PM
  74. vent Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 04/04/2024 02:00 PM Has been: Continued For the following reason: Request of Defendant(s) Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  75. otice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Stephen P Griffin, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 04/04/2024 10:16:58
  76. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Status Conference Date: 04/12/2024 Time: 09:00 AM
  77. vent Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 04/12/2024 09:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding April 12, 2024. Status conference held via videoconference. Attorney Christopher Sweeney appeared for the plaintiff. Attorney Stephen Griffin appeared for the defendant. The court and counsel discussed possible trial dates, and the court encouraged the parties to consider trying the case under Land Court Rule 14. Following discussion, the court scheduled a pretrial conference on August 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. and directed the parties to submit a pretrial memorandum by August 16, 2024. Trial will commence on September 24, 2024. (Smith, J.).
  78. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Pre-Trial Conference Date: 08/22/2024 Time: 09:00 AM
  79. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: First day of Trial Date: 09/24/2024 Time: 09:30 AM
  80. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Ongoing Trial Date: 09/25/2024 Time: 09:30 AM
  81. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Ongoing Trial Date: 09/26/2024 Time: 09:30 AM
  82. vent Resulted: Pre-Trial Conference scheduled on: 08/22/2024 09:00 AM Has been: Continued Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding (Counsel notified via email on 08/05/2024)
  83. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Pre-Trial Conference Date: 08/22/2024 Time: 10:00 AM
  84. ddendum to the Pre-Trial Conference Notice and Order, sent via email to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Stephen P Griffin, Esq. [email protected]
  85. oint Pre-Trial Memorandum, filed.
  86. vent Resulted: Pre-Trial Conference scheduled on: 08/22/2024 10:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding August 22, 2024. Pretrial conference held via videoconference. Attorney Christopher Sweeney appeared for the plaintiff. Attorney Stephen Griffin appeared for the defendant. The court has set aside three trial days for this case, although counsel for both parties indicated that the trial will likely be completed within two days. As the plaintiffs' claim sounds in trespass due to certain encroachments over the undisputed record boundary between the properties, the primary claim to be tried is the adverse possession asserted by the defendant in his counterclaim. The parties agreed that, at trial, the defendant will proceed first on his adverse possession claim. The plaintiffs may oppose the defendant's claim will their own evidence after the defendant has rested his case on that claim. The parties have agreed on the area in dispute and it is outlined on a plan identified as Exhibit 1 to the pretrial memorandum. Both parties indicated a willingness to submit the case to the court under Land Court Rule 14. To that end, the court will provide examples of stipulations and questions for the court that have been used in other adverse possession cases. The parties shall provide a joint report to the court by August 30, 2024 concerning whether have agreed to proceed under Land Court Rule 14 or not. The court will take a view of the properties on September 18, 2024, at 1:00 p.m., on which date the parties should provide the court with a copy of the binder of agreed exhibits. If the parties wish to have a court reporter present at the trial, they must retain the court reporter themselves. The trial, however, will be recorded on the courtroom recording system. Trial will commence September 24, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., in person at the Land Court. (Smith, J.).
  87. otice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Stephen P Griffin, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 08/23/2024 10:02:12
  88. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: View Date: 09/18/2024 Time: 01:00 PM
  89. efendant's Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief, filed.
  90. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Defendant's Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief Date: 09/04/2024 Time: 09:00 AM
  91. mailed report of Plaintiff, received. The plaintiff chooses not to proceed under Land Court Rule 14 .
  92. laintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's "Emergency" Motion for Injunctive Relief, filed.
  93. vent Resulted: Motion scheduled on: 09/04/2024 09:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding September 4, 2024. Motion hearing held via video conference. Attorney Christopher Sweeney appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Alexandra Smith. Attorney Stepehen Griffin appeared on behalf of Defendant Daniel Chak. This is an action to quiet title of disputed land, which contains a retaining wall and shed, between the Smith and Chak properties. Chak claims title to the land via adverse possession. At issue presently is Defendant Chak's Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief to halt ongoing construction at the Smith property, which has resulted in burying part of the retaining wall on the disputed land in loose dirt and which the Defendant claims has destroyed evidence central to the litigation. Attorney Griffin pointed the court to photographs depicting the retaining wall in its original state and in its current state covered with dirt. The court DENIED the motion at this time, reasoning that the Defendant has sufficient evidence of the disputed property and the retaining wall before the disturbance of the dirt. However, the court will revisit the Defendant's motion following the court's view of the property, scheduled for Wednesday, September 18, 2024. In the event that the court determines that the work undertaken by the Plaintiff unreasonably obscures or obstructs the area claimed by adverse possession by the Defendant, the court will, at that time, reconsider the Defendant's motion and determine whether the Defendant is entitled to the relief requested in his motion which may include an order that the Plaintiff restore the disputed area to the condition that existed prior to construction on that area of the property. (Smith, J.).
  94. otice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Stephen P Griffin, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 09/04/2024 12:09:52
  95. efendant's Supplement to Joint Pretrial Memorandum Section 3(B), filed.
  96. vent Resulted: View scheduled on: 09/18/2024 01:00 PM Has been: Held in person Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  97. vent Resulted: Trial scheduled on: 09/24/2024 09:30 AM Has been: Held - First Day of Trial Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  98. vent Resulted: Ongoing Trial scheduled on: 09/25/2024 09:30 AM Has been: Continued Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  99. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Ongoing Trial Date: 09/25/2024 Time: 10:00 AM
  100. vent Resulted: Ongoing Trial scheduled on: 09/25/2024 10:00 AM Has been: Held in person Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  101. vent Resulted: Ongoing Trial scheduled on: 09/26/2024 09:30 AM Has been: Canceled Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
  102. ctober 25, 2024. The court received counsel's emailed report which stated that the parties have agreed to a deadline of December 15, 2024 for submission of Proposed Findings of Fact and Requests for Rulings of Law, and the court APPROVES this deadline. (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Stephen P Griffin, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 10/25/2024 16:27:00
  103. efendant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law, filed. (Courtesy copy received)
  104. mith Post-Trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed. (Courtesy copy received)
  105. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Ongoing Trial - Closing Arguments Date: 01/14/2025 Time: 11:30 AM
  106. ranscripts received of the following trial dates: September 24, 2024 and September 25, 2024.
  107. mith Reply Memorandum in Support of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed.
  108. efendant's Emergency Motion to Strike Reply Memorandum, filed.
  109. rial Ends.: Ongoing Trial scheduled on: 01/14/2025 11:30 AM Has been: Held - Trial Ends Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding January 14, 2025. Closing arguments held on-site at the courthouse in courtroom 1102. Attorney Christopher Sweeney appeared for the plaintiff. Attorney Stephen Griffin appeared for the defendant. The court ALLOWED defendant's emergency motion to strike reply memorandum. Following closing arguments, the court encouraged the parties to explore settlement options. The court to take case under advisement and will issue a decision in due course. (Smith, J.). (Counsel notified via email on 01/14/2025)
  110. ase taken under advisement.
  111. ecision After Trial, issued. (Copies emailed to Attorneys Christopher Sweeney, Sarah Nyren, and Stephen Griffin) Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T.
  112. lan of Land located at 76 & 82 Alban Street Dorchester, MA Date April 23, 2025 (Defendant's Proposed Plan for Recording), filed.
  113. mith Motion to Extend Deadline to File Objection to Plan, filed.
  114. ay 13, 2025. Smith Motion to Extend Deadline to File Objection to Plan, ALLOWED. Deadline to file an objection is extended June 13, 2025. (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Stephen P Griffin, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 05/13/2025 12:05:34
  115. laintiff's Objection to Plan, filed.
  116. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Status Conference Date: 07/28/2025 Time: 10:30 AM (To be held: via video conference)
  117. vent Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 07/28/2025 10:30 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding July 28, 2025. Status Conference held via videoconference. Attorney Christopher Sweeney appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, Alexandra Smith. Attorney Stephen Griffin appeared on behalf of the Defendant, Daniel Chak. This was an action for trespass and adverse possession. Following trial, the court issued a decision on April 14, 2025 ruling that the Defendant had acquired title to a triangular piece of land located between the parties' properties by adverse possession. On May 6, 2025, the Defendant filed a proposed plan for recording. Before the court is the Plaintiff's Motion objecting to the plan. Attorney Sweeney explained that when the Plaintiff's surveyor overlayed his plan with the proposed plan, there is a small discrepancy, resulting in some of the Plaintiff's driveway being included in the proposed plan. He pointed the court to the overlayed plans attached as an exhibit to his motion. Attorney Griffin disagreed that there is a discrepancy. Following colloquy, the court ruled that it will allow counsel to confer with their respective surveyors and attempt to reach an agreement. Counsel is to provide a joint report by August 15, 2025 outlining whether they have reached an agreed-upon plan or whether they require a date for trial on this limited issue. (Smith, J.).
  118. otice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Stephen P Griffin, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 07/28/2025 13:39:11
  119. oint Status Report, filed.
  120. udgment, entered. (Copies emailed to Attorneys Sweeney, Nyren, and Griffin) Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T.
  121. otice of Appeal by Alexandra Smith to the Appeals Court filed.
  122. laintiff's Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal, filed.
  123. otice of Service of Notice of Appeal sent to Stephen P Griffin, Esq.
  124. otion to Amend Court's Findings of Fact, filed.
  125. cheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal and Motion to Amend Court's Findings of Fact Date: 09/16/2025 Time: 09:00 AM To be held: via video conference
  126. efendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Findings of Fact, filed.
  127. ORRECTION: Due to clerical error, the following correction was made to the docket on September 12, 2025: The corrected language is "Smith's Motion to Compel Responses to Document Requests, Production of Documents, Responses to Requests for Admissions, and Answers to Interrogatories from Chak, filed." and the following original text is stricken: "Smith's Motion to Compel Responses to Document Requests, Production of Documents, Responses for Admissions, and Answers to Interrogatories from Chak, filed.." Entry dated 01/06/2023.
  128. efendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal, filed.
  129. efendant's Motion to Require Plaintiff to Post a Bond, filed.
  130. vent Resulted: Motion scheduled on: 09/16/2025 09:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding September 16, 2025. Motion Hearing held via videoconference. Attorney Christopher Sweeney appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, Alexandra Smith. Attorney Stephen Griffin appeared on behalf of the Defendant, Daniel Chak. Before the court are two motions: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Findings of Fact, and Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal. Attorney Sweeney argued the Motion to Amend Findings of Fact, requesting that the certain of the court's findings of fact be amended for the purpose of clarifying the record on appeal. The Defendant opposed the motion. Following colloquy, the court DENIED the motion to Amend Findings of Fact. As to the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay, Attorney Sweeney argued that the Defendant intends to market his property for sale and a stay of the judgment is necessary to protect the Plaintiff's rights on appeal in the event that a third party purchases the Defendant's property before the appeal is exhausted. Attorney Griffin argued in opposition that the Plaintiff has not satisfied the elements for the entry of a stay of a judgment pending appeal. The court took the Motion to Stay under advisement. Counsel notified the court that the Defendant filed a Motion to Require Plaintiff to Post a Bond after hours last evening. The court had not reviewed the motion at the time of this hearing. The court will decide whether a hearing is necessary upon review of the motion. (Smith, J.).
  131. otice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Christopher Kevin Sweeney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Sarah M Nyren, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Stephen P Griffin, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 09/16/2025 16:29:25
  132. otice of Appeal by Alexandra Smith to the Appeals Court filed. (Second Notice of Appeal)
  133. otice of Service of Notice of Appeal sent to Stephen P Griffin, Esq.
  134. ORRECTION: Due to clerical error, the following correction was made to the docket on September 29, 2025: The corrected language is "Smith's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Non-Party Timothy Kilburn, filed." and the following original text is stricken: "Smith's Motion to Compel Testimony of Non-Party Timothy Kilburn, filed.." Entry dated 03/27/2023.
  135. ORRECTION: Due to clerical error, the following correction was made to the docket on September 29, 2025: The corrected language is "Smith's Reply to Chak's Response to Motion to Compel Deposition of Non-Party Timothy Kilburn, filed." and the following original text is stricken: "Smith's Reply to Chak's Response to Motion to Compel Deposition of Non_Party Timothy Kilburn, filed.." Entry dated 04/26/2023.

See the patterns behind this case

The free view above tells you who’s in the room. The detailed reports below show how the room tends to behave — using the same public records lawyers quietly rely on before every hearing.

  • Judge Report

    How this judge has ruled in cases like yours — case mix, motion outcomes, and historical docket. Judges set the floor of what’s possible in your courtroom.

  • Attorney vs Judge Report

    Everything in the Judge Report, plus how your attorney has actually performed in front of this judge. Attorneys move you off the floor — or don’t.

One-time payment, no subscription. Reports describe past public court activity — they don’t predict outcomes and they aren’t legal advice.

Get Free Case Details

Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.

By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.

Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In

Featured in Forbes, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, Above The Law, American Bar Association, and more